The net sink is druving CO2. Lololololol
lol like you have. Oceans as sodas and the thermosphere combusting to cause flooding for 40 days have been your major contributions.
The net sink is druving CO2. Lololololol
I used an unrelated example to explain to those not understanding science, an example of how temperature affects CO2 solubility, in a manner they have probably witnessed. Also... don't you know that chemical reactions can take place without combustion? I also never said it caused the 40 day flood, I started with something like "I wonder if there is some truth..."
Fuzzy... I'm getting tired of explaining these things to your dumb ass. You never learn.
You also don't understand I see.
It is a net sing, but the net quan y of sinking is still less than the sourcing we have.
The temperature has changed the balance such that if the atmosphere wasn't already being supplied with more CO2, the ocean would supply it instead.
Lolol. Keep it coming please
How about telling me why I'm wrong so I can smack you down.
The act of dissolving is not a chemical change. Chemical changes involving oxidation are by definition combustion. Please tell me how I do not understand some more.
Basically what this should tell you is that despite the water being less soluble, more stuff is getting dissolved. That makes the rate of change more significant and not less.
Are you really that dense?
Man....
I pity you.
No Sherlock. You addressed more than one thing. I answered more than one thing.
Yes.
The water at a slightly warmer temperature will dissolve a smaller ratio than at a colder temperature. however, with mankind adding CO2 to the air, the equilibrium is altered by this added source. Therefor, to achieve balance, the ocean absorbs more. However, it absorbs less than it would if it hadn't raised in temperature.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
---edit---
changed lower to warmer in the above text.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-06-2012 at 04:28 PM. Reason: changed lower to warmer
Absorbing less =! releasing CO2, soda boy.
Stick to changing out parts from a guide. You're really bad at all physics, it seems.
Or Chemistry for that matter.
Touche.
You've pushed this beyond salvage tbh. I choose to observe in this thread....and point out when basic physical laws are misinterpreted.
Carry on.
BEST was funded in no small part by the Koch brothers.http://berkeleyearth.org/donors/
The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
That is one of the things that makes its statements satisfying the honest skepticism all the more credible, generally.
BEST debunked several of your favorite memes. Yet I noted that you repeated at least one of them (i.e. location of some monitoring stations materially altering entire data sets to the point of unreliability) that I can remember.
Why?
I don't think saying I am generally skeptical of the way you present things and what you tend to present qualifies as a "fit".
You are assuming the second part of the graph was an honest and accurate depiction of BEST data, and have stated that much here, almost explicitly.
I am not sure it is an honest depiction. Given your pattern of presenting sources who very obviously cherry-pick data, skepticism of your claims is the only logical response, until proven otherwise.
Can you show that is a honest depiction of the data? Reproducing the graph would suffice to say yes, or alternately, a blurb from the BEST report along those lines would work.
um, okaaay.
How does this affect GW? (or not cause it, or whatever it is you are trying to imply, I honestly haven't been following along)
Um...
What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?
I can't answer your question, 'cause I ain't in yer head.
FWIW.
I didn't have to shovel my driveway EVEN ONCE this entire winter.
Again, I'm no longer a denier of AGW. I'm a proponent.
You'll think twice if you read this:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL050762.shtml
Fair enough.
I seem to remember a poll about AGW and the belief in the theory seems to wax/wane with the temperature in the U.S.
Not reassuring.
Absorbing less as a ratio can be more when the total being equalized is greater.Absorbing less =! releasing CO2, soda boy.
It can be but its not in this case and not even close. Thats the point: anthropocentric CO2 production is increasing the amount dissolved despite forces working in the opposite direction.
I'll wait for the real data
We find a consistent and statistically significant increase in the intensity of future extreme winter precipitation events over the western United States, as simulated by an ensemble of regional climate models (RCMs) driven by IPCC AR4 global climate models (GCMs). All eight simulations analyzed in this work consistently show an increase in the intensity of extreme winter precipitation with the multi-model mean projecting an area-averaged 12.6% increase in 20-year return period and 14.4% increase in 50-year return period daily precipitation. In contrast with extreme precipitation, the multi-model ensemble shows a decrease in mean winter precipitation of approximately 7.5% in the southwestern US, while the interior west shows less statistically robust increases.
I hope you get to live long enough to see it.
I notice neither you nor WC have stated what you think the strongest aspects of the IPCC report are.
I will put the same question to you:
What do you think the strongest arguments of the people putting forth the AGW theory are?
I wouldn't say any of them are strong. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to be a skeptic.
Have I claimed otherwise? Not to my knowledge. Are you ASSuming again?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions